Qualcomm Becomes Target Of EU Anti-Trust Regulators

[Guest]

Four-year-old Icera anti-trust accusation comes back to haunt Qualcomm. This time the EU Commission takes the bite and prepares to open a full anti-trust investigation into Qualcomm once the summer is over.

Qualcomm Becomes Target Of EU Anti-Trust Regulators : Read more

 

[somebodyspecial]

Since NV owns icera now, I wonder if a victory would net them anything. Even if not it would certainly hurt Qcom's finances. EU seems to hand out Billion+ fines these days to any billion dollar company they target for taxation (LOL).

 

[Duckhunt]

Since NV owns icera now, I wonder if a victory would net them anything. Even if not it would certainly hurt Qcom's finances. EU seems to hand out Billion+ fines these days to any billion dollar company they target for taxation (LOL).

Well secret payments ( bribes) maybe ok for you but it is not good for competition and not good for the economy. What is next? targetted killings against the competition because you can't compete? It is funny how the so many champion the free market as long as it suits them.


Intel secretly paid computer manufacturers to buy only intel CPUs from Intel..
Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

That maybe ok to happen in the USA with the Failed DOJ, failed other regulator agencies but its not ok in the EU.

 

[daekar]

You know, I don't like a lot of what happens in the EU, but I'm with them on this one. I'm all about the free market, hard work, and private enterprise, but pro-competition laws like this are laws that I absolutely believe in. I don't know if QC is guilty - no axes to grind here - but they should abide by laws AND ethical business practices even if they aren't bound by the force of law. When a company forgets the Golden Rule with respect to its employees, customers, and competitors, then they have become a perfect example of why unions and regulatory laws were originally created.

 

[mariusmotea]

@daekar - i don't like what happens in USA, with all these stupid patents. EU is a good example for USA in many cases.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Since NV owns icera now, I wonder if a victory would net them anything. Even if not it would certainly hurt Qcom's finances. EU seems to hand out Billion+ fines these days to any billion dollar company they target for taxation (LOL).

Well secret payments ( bribes) maybe ok for you but it is not good for competition and not good for the economy. What is next? targetted killings against the competition because you can't compete? It is funny how the so many champion the free market as long as it suits them.


Intel secretly paid computer manufacturers to buy only intel CPUs from Intel..
Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

That maybe ok to happen in the USA with the Failed DOJ, failed other regulator agencies but its not ok in the EU.

I don't even understand your comment. The question is if the EU wins does is NV entitled to any of it since they own icera? I'm saying they should get their just rewards for being screwed by qcom. Voted down for that? LOL. You can read many of my posts in here about Intel screwing AMD and saying Intel should have been made to pay them $20-30B since they made $60B during the time it all happened. THAT would deter them from doing this crap again. They will continue to cheat with small slaps on the wrist that are FAR less than the profits they get from screwing the AMD's, Icera's etc. You apparently didn't understand my point.

Having said that, the EU is essentially taxing these companies. They don't pay a check to the company that gets screwed. They keep it themselves, which is why I said what I said about the EU. Their suits would mean a LOT more if they gave the money they took to the people who go SCREWED. If EU wins the case Nvidia should get money, but we all know that won't happen. That is the point. I'm hoping qcom gets screwed here, you happy now? But my problem with it is Icera (thus NV) won't see a dime of the ridiculously high fine EU would try to get for their own pockets.

Where in my post did it say I was ok with backroom tactics and bribes? Ridiculous. Exactly the opposite is true, but the problem is the money usually doesn't go where it should after the case is resolved.

 

[somebodyspecial]

One more note, I own NV stock, so naturally I want them to get something from this Whatever makes NV or AMD stronger is great IMHO (even if I wasn't a shareholder in either). So much of our GAMING fun is hanging on these two companies (for two decades) but neither is hugely strong compared to all the other players in this market (intel, ms, goog, apple, samsung, qcom etc). All of them benefit from the great gpu tech in some way shape or form, but the two running the show are lacking profits compared to the list I mentioned. All of them make BILLIONS while the two gpu makers can't crack more than 1/2bil. I hope that changes soon for both. I really wish AMD would get an ARM soc out for tablets etc. Huge money won't be made for a while in servers (ecosystem has to get made first) which is why NV avoided it for now. Not sure why AMD didn't do the same and go where the ecosystem already exists and is getting even better (for gaming I mean, AndroidL+AEP geared for games) for their type of product (a great gpu and clearly they know how to make a cpu side for that soc too).

 

[Duckhunt]

Since NV owns icera now, I wonder if a victory would net them anything. Even if not it would certainly hurt Qcom's finances. EU seems to hand out Billion+ fines these days to any billion dollar company they target for taxation (LOL).

Well secret payments ( bribes) maybe ok for you but it is not good for competition and not good for the economy. What is next? targetted killings against the competition because you can't compete? It is funny how the so many champion the free market as long as it suits them.


Intel secretly paid computer manufacturers to buy only intel CPUs from Intel..
Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

That maybe ok to happen in the USA with the Failed DOJ, failed other regulator agencies but its not ok in the EU.

I don't even understand your comment. The question is if the EU wins does is NV entitled to any of it since they own icera? I'm saying they should get their just rewards for being screwed by qcom. Voted down for that? LOL. You can read many of my posts in here about Intel screwing AMD and saying Intel should have been made to pay them $20-30B since they made $60B during the time it all happened. THAT would deter them from doing this crap again. They will continue to cheat with small slaps on the wrist that are FAR less than the profits they get from screwing the AMD's, Icera's etc. You apparently didn't understand my point.

Having said that, the EU is essentially taxing these companies. They don't pay a check to the company that gets screwed. They keep it themselves, which is why I said what I said about the EU. Their suits would mean a LOT more if they gave the money they took to the people who go SCREWED. If EU wins the case Nvidia should get money, but we all know that won't happen. That is the point. I'm hoping qcom gets screwed here, you happy now? But my problem with it is Icera (thus NV) won't see a dime of the ridiculously high fine EU would try to get for their own pockets.

Where in my post did it say I was ok with backroom tactics and bribes? Ridiculous. Exactly the opposite is true, but the problem is the money usually doesn't go where it should after the case is resolved.

No you pretend that it is tax. It is not tax. They worked out how much it effected the the folk in the EU. These fines were conservative as you can see. They were made to make it hurt alittle. You seem to be confused yourself about the size of the fine and tax and all these other things.

Lets look at this example. You shoot a terrorist dead. You are a hero. You shoot your neighbor dead because you don't like him. You are a criminal. It is all to do with the scenario. It is a killing or a murder.

It is clear to me there is a difference. Maybe to you because they are both dead it means the same.I guess some folk are not suppose to be playing with fire arms.

 

[Duckhunt]

One more note, I own NV stock, so naturally I want them to get something from this Whatever makes NV or AMD stronger is great IMHO (even if I wasn't a shareholder in either). So much of our GAMING fun is hanging on these two companies (for two decades) but neither is hugely strong compared to all the other players in this market (intel, ms, goog, apple, samsung, qcom etc). All of them benefit from the great gpu tech in some way shape or form, but the two running the show are lacking profits compared to the list I mentioned. All of them make BILLIONS while the two gpu makers can't crack more than 1/2bil. I hope that changes soon for both. I really wish AMD would get an ARM soc out for tablets etc. Huge money won't be made for a while in servers (ecosystem has to get made first) which is why NV avoided it for now. Not sure why AMD didn't do the same and go where the ecosystem already exists and is getting even better (for gaming I mean, AndroidL+AEP geared for games) for their type of product (a great gpu and clearly they know how to make a cpu side for that soc too).

The other thing you don't understand is that the fine is against the the behavior against the EU. It is not about AMD. It is AMD who can go and go after specific damages themselves. Though more likely AMD is too incompetent to seek legal advice to seek redress of Intel's criminal behavior.

 

[somebodyspecial]

One more note, I own NV stock, so naturally I want them to get something from this Whatever makes NV or AMD stronger is great IMHO (even if I wasn't a shareholder in either). So much of our GAMING fun is hanging on these two companies (for two decades) but neither is hugely strong compared to all the other players in this market (intel, ms, goog, apple, samsung, qcom etc). All of them benefit from the great gpu tech in some way shape or form, but the two running the show are lacking profits compared to the list I mentioned. All of them make BILLIONS while the two gpu makers can't crack more than 1/2bil. I hope that changes soon for both. I really wish AMD would get an ARM soc out for tablets etc. Huge money won't be made for a while in servers (ecosystem has to get made first) which is why NV avoided it for now. Not sure why AMD didn't do the same and go where the ecosystem already exists and is getting even better (for gaming I mean, AndroidL+AEP geared for games) for their type of product (a great gpu and clearly they know how to make a cpu side for that soc too).

The other thing you don't understand is that the fine is against the the behavior against the EU. It is not about AMD. It is AMD who can go and go after specific damages themselves. Though more likely AMD is too incompetent to seek legal advice to seek redress of Intel's criminal behavior.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/11/12/intel-settles-amd-court-case-pays-1-25-bill/1
You don't even seem to know what is happening. Case already over, and while Intel pocketed $60bil during the AMD screwing, AMD ends with 1.25B. They will continue to harm the competition as long as those are the numbers. I would too, it's just good business clearly.

The problem is HARMING the competition (weakening consumer choices), which in the end harms the consumers. I'm not against a much LARGER fine (as indicated, I said AMD deserved 30Bil), IF it actually went to the companies that were harmed by the behavior. You fix the behavior by helping the competition that got screwed (hand that check to THEM), not helping yourself to a company tax. That kind of fine would help the competition keep competing. Fining the company in this case just pads their wallet, it does nothing to help the competition who got harmed in the first place. If you fine me 1.25B when I'm making $20B+ over the time I harmed you (check Qcom's profits over the last 4yrs), I'll keep harming you yearly...LOL. Intel made $60B and in the end paid 1.25B for harming AMD (little companies like AMD don't have the resources to battle for years more to get what they really should get, you don't seem to understand this). I'll take that fine every 10yrs too every single time as I crush the competition and keep getting richer...LOL. Now if someone would have forced Intel to give AMD a check of $30Bil, maybe they'd think twice about harming again. As I said, EU fines do nothing but pad wallets, not stop the problem from occurring again and again. The point of justice in these cases should be to stop the bad behavior and compensate the harmed (companies) so competition can keep going strong and in the end consumers benefit.

Not even going to bother with your other junk comment.